So the age old, common debate,"is there a god?". Currently I believe no, however if there is more, solid, supporting evident I am all ears. As we all should know there are many religions, with many different gods. So what makes one god more real than another? Religions merely provided a simple and unexplained answer to our creation. The only 'evidence' given to us are believers stories and a book from many years ago. Time and time again science has disproved such cases that were published and populations believed in (such as the earth being flat). The reason science has not yet disproved god is because the answer to our creation is most likely the hardest problem to solve. We all put our faith in science, weather it be the glasses on your face, the roof over your head or the computer you reed this on. So why bother split you faith and believe in a god? Science supplies you with all that you have, and either god or science supplies you with the platform in which you live life.

Hi. I may or may not actually believe in a god or pantheon of gods. That is something that I choose not to reveal to people at the moment. However, people seem to debate this issue all the time, so I thought that it would be interesting to give it a go myself.

I'd like to point out that by arguing for the existence of a "God," I will be arguing for the existence of a higher power or higher powers, not the specific God(s) of any religion(s).

I'd also like to clarify that burden of proof is shared by my opponent and I, I think. This isn't a case of one person making a claim and another trying to prove that there isn't enough evidence to support that claim. I am arguing for the definite existence of a higher power, and my opponent is arguing for the definite lack of one.

Right, well, you made it a 1k character limit, so I'll endeavor to make this brief.

I will first address some of your points before making my own.

"So what makes one god more real than another?" The existence of multiple opinions does not make the true one any less true.

"The only 'evidence' given to us are believers stories and a book from many years ago." Not so. I will provide more evidence shortly.

Thermodynamically speaking, the naked Big Bang Theory does not make sense. It may well be that there was a singularity of matter that exploded. It exploding without any cause, though, is impossible. If all the matter in the universe was in that singularity, then an outside force, not consisting of matter and independent of the universe, must have caused it to explode. The Big Bang Theory was actually thought up by a Catholic priest in support of the idea of God. (1)

Reasons for voting decision: Pro was the only one with sources, which also leads me to believe that Pro had a more convincing argument, since it was backed up by sources. He also argued against man made concepts that went against the aforesaid question, "Is there a god?". Con had no rebuttals and a poorly written opening argument, which happened to be his only argument. Additionally, Con had multiple spelling errors, such as "reed" instead of read; "you" instead of your; etc.

You are not eligible to vote on this debate

This debate has been configured to only allow voters who meet the requirements set by the debaters. This debate either has an Elo score requirement or is to be voted on by a select panel of judges.